ATLANTA TRANSIT (Marta, Beltline, Peachtree Streetcar, LovJoy Commuter, etc...)

[dante2308]

Hmm, the article says:

"The highest-scoring projects had the biggest regional impact, topped by a $5.6 billion commuter rail network and a $2.9 billion light rail line, from Kennesaw State University down through Cumberland and Lindbergh to Decatur. The most cost-effective project was a $133 million streetcar line on Ponce de Leon and North avenues in Atlanta."

Somehow I just don't see how $133 million on a streetcar down Ponce is an apples to apples comparison to a commuter rail network or light rail. Unless the objective is the cheapest project that involves track. In which case I suggest a streetcar between me and Publix.

Regional large scale traffic and transportation issues are not on the same level of a slow-moving streetcar on a local road as people are quoted in there as saying. I'm thinking very hard right now about who would ride it and for what purpose and whether enough people would ride it to have any sort of impact on traffic on the road itself.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by dante2308

Hmm, the article says:

"The highest-scoring projects had the biggest regional impact, topped by a $5.6 billion commuter rail network and a $2.9 billion light rail line, from Kennesaw State University down through Cumberland and Lindbergh to Decatur. The most cost-effective project was a $133 million streetcar line on Ponce de Leon and North avenues in Atlanta."

Somehow I just don't see how $133 million on a streetcar down Ponce is an apples to apples comparison to a commuter rail network or light rail. Unless the objective is the cheapest project that involves track. In which case I suggest a streetcar between me and Publix.

Regional large scale traffic and transportation issues are not on the same level of a slow-moving streetcar on a local road as people are quoted in there as saying. I'm thinking very hard right now about who would ride it and for what purpose and whether enough people would ride it to have any sort of impact on traffic on the road itself.

Because alot of people live right there. Transportation isn't just about large scale moving people long distances across the region. It is also about providing high-density areas a way to connect to the regional system without a car.

When the beltline is made it will also be a potential way to route light-rail/streetcars into midtown.

You mix that with the relatively really low cost of the project that would give it a high cost-effectiveness.

Such a project will also do alot to raise the nearby land values, which will give the city a greater ability to pay for operations as was also mentioned in the article for the Auburn Ave. segment.

The commuter rail system, which I also strongly support, is ultimately much more expensive to implement since it is designed to move people far greater distances and for one purpose. To save money it only operates during peak times and shares space with freight. I see this as having a high-cost effectiveness, but just for the suburban population that need to travel a long distance to get to work.

By comparison the streetcar is an all day thing. It will act as a circulator near the MARTA station, a means to connect denser developments and intown residents to MARTA and midtown, and a means to carry people to retail and nightlife within the neighborhood.

And on a side note... for those that are interested. the North Ave streetcar could be tied into the Cobb LRT in the future. One of the routes under consideration is to turn into a streetcar down North Ave. So in an odd way the North Ave. streetcar is part of the Cobb LRT plan, although it would not be built just for that purpose.

[dante2308]

No, that corridor doesn't realistically connect homes to businesses in any significant way. I think we should focus on TODs around all the MARTA stations before spending $133 million on a questionably useful route. If the goal is to arbitrarily raise land values so we can extract and tax more money from the people there, and we have $133 million to do it, I vote for better schools. Traffic on Ponce isn't all that bad and we have oh so many undeveloped transit corridors as it is.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by dante2308

No, that corridor doesn't realistically connect homes to businesses in any significant way. I think we should focus on TODs around all the MARTA stations before spending $133 million on a questionably useful route. If the goal is to arbitrarily raise land values so we can extract and tax more money from the people there, and we have $133 million to do it, I vote for better schools. Traffic on Ponce isn't all that bad and we have oh so many undeveloped transit corridors as it is.

My family has lived in this area for many generations way back to when Atlanta was small. From the time that corridor was built it has always had lots of residents and businesses. You see old staples there like Mary Mac's Tea Room. The last decade has led to even more development. More of those 5-6 story tall condo/apartment buildings and more street level retail under them. The area near the now shuttered Old Spaghetti Factory is an excellent example. There are also dense residential areas near Piedmont and Juniper that would take advantage of the MARTA connection and easier access to retail stores along Ponce. There is also ample room for more of this type of development in the area as well. It has both the density and the ability to grow.

I'm trying to be as respectful as possible with your arguments, but still take them at face value, but when I hear someone say, "that corridor doesn't realistically connect homes to businesses in any significant way," I have to question how well you really know the area. It is almost like we are talking about two completely different places or perhaps you see those types of businesses and residents as being less important for transit.

And this doesn't even mention that it helps connect residents to Atlanta's tallest building and the many other offices in that area.

And again as I have discussed in previous posts on other issues... you don't just raise property values by arbitrarily taxing people in that area more. You raise them by creating demand for denser developments. More units on the same property leads to better tax proceeds, which provides a good source of funding for the operation of transit services itself. For those who live in single family homes a few blocks away and if there property values go up...well good for them. That is what most people want...more equity in their property.

[dante2308]

It is a matter of scale to me. You're talking about the BOA tower, the Coke Tower, the At&T tower, and Georgia Tech as employment centers, the shopping along Ponce and the surrounding residential areas. It isn't to say that there aren't businesses and residences along the route, I'm saying they are already connected, already have bus lines and the entire corridor is easily navigable by car with commute times an order of magnitude lower than the suburb-city commute.

What I don't understand is why we would focus so much money on one road to create something that isn't truly mass transit when we have so many underdeveloped areas around MARTA. Why not develop those? Why not create the kind of dense communities around them?

38 stations. That's how many transit oriented, high density, land-value appreciating areas we have to focus on. Some are well developed, most aren't, all have room for growth. When space runs low around those, then we can start throwing around hundreds of millions on novelties. Meanwhile, we have a practical commuter issue and commuter rail and light rail with an eye towards connecting disconnected regions should be first priority.

[dante2308]

By the way, it isn't that the taxes raise the land values. I never said that. Though I keep hearing that the purpose of raising land values is to extract more money per-capita to pay for other things. The thought was that having transit near by raises the value of the properties in the area because realtors can use it as a selling point to increase demand. That demand encourages developers to fill that increased demand by offering high density units. However, from the perspective of a home-owner, whether or not they plan to sell their house, whether or not they can afford it,whether or not they use the streetcar, they have to pay hundreds, maybe thousands more a year in property taxes.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by dante2308

By the way, it isn't that the taxes raise the land values. I never said that. Though I keep hearing that the purpose of raising land values is to extract more money per-capita to pay for other things. The thought was that having transit near by raises the value of the properties in the area because realtors can use it as a selling point to increase demand. That demand encourages developers to fill that increased demand by offering high density units. However, from the perspective of a home-owner, whether or not they plan to sell their house, whether or not they can afford it,whether or not they use the streetcar, they have to pay hundreds, maybe thousands more a year in property taxes.

I can just imagine now... all those poor home owners are going to be complaining they have made so much money in the equity of their home, they will have access to a nice new streetcar, and their neighborhood might grow even nicer with urban renewal. Tough life. I'm sorry, but most people want their home value to go up and are more fearful of it going down or stay stagnant.

And yes... it is a matter of scale. That is why it is soooo much cheaper than commuter rail or a long light rail line. The area is dense enough it still has a good cost-effective ratio with a relatively short rail corridor. The increase in tax revenues can also pay for the extra operations costs. I just don't see why that is hard to understand.

And this also fails to mention that is serves a good urban circulator to and from MARTA's core system

[dante2308]

I remember when the bubble was gearing up in South Florida. My great grand uncle, retired, lived in his house for as long as my parents were alive. All of a sudden, way past his working years, his house value shot up for no reason and with no change to the neighborhood. But you see he didn't want to leave. He figured his savings and cut back and as long as the taxes didn't get any higher, he could still scrap by. Of course they did and so fast. Those property taxes came due and bankrupted him forcing him to put his paid off home on the market, but you see then the market tanked... and while the house lost some value, it didn't put a dime back in his pocket and now there was no way to sell it.

But yay for land values!

Forcing people out of their homes since Jim Crow. Affordability be damned. One day, we can rid Ponce of anyone with a middle class income. And when land values go up like that, the people who are forced to cash out equity have to move into a smaller less convenient place because apparently the house they bought on a reasonable income is now too good for them. That extra cash buys less, so now they not only lost their house, they have to do with less just to be able to afford property taxes. And that's the BEST case scenario. If they can't find a buyer or can't bring themselves to be kicked out, they just lost thousands of dollars per year of their disposable income to the damn streetcar.

That's why I suggest that if you really want to put people through this crap, spend the money on better schools so at least their kids can be more upwardly mobile. The school quality has been depressing house values anyway.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by dante2308

I remember when the bubble was gearing up in South Florida. My great grand uncle, retired, lived in his house for as long as my parents were alive. All of a sudden, way past his working years, his house value shot up for no reason and with no change to the neighborhood. But you see he didn't want to leave. He figured his savings and cut back and as long as the taxes didn't get any higher, he could still scrap by. Of course they did and so fast. Those property taxes came due and bankrupted him forcing him to put his paid off home on the market, but you see then the market tanked... and while the house lost some value, it didn't put a dime back in his pocket and now there was no way to sell it.

But yay for land values!

Forcing people out of their homes since Jim Crow. Affordability be damned. One day, we can rid Ponce of anyone with a middle class income. And when land values go up like that, the people who are forced to cash our equity have to move into a smaller less convenient place because apparently the house they bought on a reasonable income is now too good for them. That extra cash buys less, so now they not only lost their house, they have to do with less just to be able to afford property taxes. And that's the BEST case scenario. If they can't find a buyer, they just lost thousands of dollars per year of their disposable income to the damn streetcar.

Well I am deeply sorry for your uncle, but we are discussing increasing land values due to good infrastructure investment, but not increasing land values because of a housing bubble.

You are also failing to address that most of the increase in land value is caused by an increase in residential density. If someone owns a large lot home in a high land-value area they might be forced to move on to a cheaper area without a streetcar or into a smaller lot home or a condo. These people are relatively few and there are more options open to them. Additionally, if they sell after the streetcar line comes in and the land value goes up they would be able to afford a nicer home than they had before or choose to buy a home that costs the same amount and pocket the money and live a nicer retirement. But in the end of the day... if land values go up, because of adequate infrastructure investment, everyone can win.

If you ignore that, then you are essentially arguing we should never try to make an area nicer because the home values might go up.

If anything we make the area more affordable, because more people are living in condos that are cheaper to buy, even though the land it sits on has a higher value. They share that value with all the other owners in the building.

I feel sorry for your uncle. I really do, but streetcars and urban investment didn't make a housing bubble.

[dante2308]

No you can't buy a nicer home than you already have if you can't afford to live in the quality home you have. If a streetcar went down my uncle's road it wouldn't be worth being bankrupt.

And it wasn't really "relatively few people." The housing bubble in South Florida was so violent that their metro population went down for a few years forcing hundreds of thousands of families to move out (a train my own family had to ride out of town). If that Streetcar is a 1.5x multiplier on values I just don't see how it wont affect every single business and homeowner in the pocket.

And see I don't see the streetcar as an infrastructure improvement. What's wrong with the bus?

I have no problem with making a place nicer than it is, but I don't like that land values are used as a primary justification. I maintain that you can make your TODs where there is already transit and the city doesn't have to spend all that money on a cute bus on rails. Any increase in land value around a MARTA station today would come from actual value-added and the money can be directed towards filling an actual need.

Finally density isn't what drives values, it can, but values will shoot up whether or not a single new building is built, which is unlikely as it is with most developers shell shocked. Even if condos were going to shoot up because of a streetcar and we were bubbling like it was twenty oh seven, I'm trying to figure out where one can find this "affordable urban condo with access to transit." Perhaps a developer can build a condo on Ponce as is, as they already do, and offer a reasonable damn price.

[dante2308]

And thanks for expressing your sympathy, his children helping him out with that and his mounting medial bills.

[cybele]

Originally Posted by dante2308

I remember when the bubble was gearing up in South Florida. My great grand uncle, retired, lived in his house for as long as my parents were alive. All of a sudden, way past his working years, his house value shot up for no reason and with no change to the neighborhood. But you see he didn't want to leave. He figured his savings and cut back and as long as the taxes didn't get any higher, he could still scrap by. Of course they did and so fast. Those property taxes came due and bankrupted him forcing him to put his paid off home on the market, but you see then the market tanked... and while the house lost some value, it didn't put a dime back in his pocket and now there was no way to sell it.
.

Well, a man shouldn't never be forced out of his home on account of the dang taxes. The government is supposed to help, not take over. What they should do is put a freeze on them for people who has lived so many years in a certain neighborhood that's all of a sudden going up. Just put a lid on them till he sells or what have you.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by cybele

Well, a man shouldn't never be forced out of his home on account of the dang taxes. The government is supposed to help, not take over. What they should do is put a freeze on them for people who has lived so many years in a certain neighborhood that's all of a sudden going up. Just put a lid on them till he sells or what have you.

I honestly think the concept of property taxes should be thrown out. Base it on income alone. You buy something it's yours. You don't have to pay for it over and over again to the government for having it. Same applies to sales tax. You don't tax starving people for buying a sandwich and you don't tax old people for having a roof.

Of course this "gentrification" scheme is all planned out to be exactly like it is.

One of the plans in South Florida was that they changed the roof code arbitrarily so everyone who didn't have those pink shingles would have to buy a new roof or be in violation. What happened of course was the poorest areas had to sell to flippers and developers.

[echinatl]

Originally Posted by dante2308

I remember when the bubble was gearing up in South Florida. My great grand uncle, retired, lived in his house for as long as my parents were alive. All of a sudden, way past his working years, his house value shot up for no reason and with no change to the neighborhood. But you see he didn't want to leave. He figured his savings and cut back and as long as the taxes didn't get any higher, he could still scrap by. Of course they did and so fast. Those property taxes came due and bankrupted him forcing him to put his paid off home on the market, but you see then the market tanked... and while the house lost some value, it didn't put a dime back in his pocket and now there was no way to sell it.

This doesn't make sense, maybe I read what you wrote wrong.
1. If he lived there long enough to pay off his house he certainly could have sold it for whatever the going amount at the time was, even if it was below the peak amount. How can there be no way to sell a home that is paid off?
and
2. Large part of my family live in South Florida, and anyone of retirement age gets huge breaks on their property taxes. I have a family member that bought a condo 3 blocks from south beach for 20,000. Her home has gone up significantly over the last 20ish years and she's never had any problems.
3. There is the "Save our Homes" provision which keeps wild swings in property taxes from happening (locks the max swing to 3%).

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by echinatl

This doesn't make sense, maybe I read what you wrote wrong.
1. If he lived there long enough to pay off his house he certainly could have sold it for whatever the going amount at the time was, even if it was below the peak amount. How can there be no way to sell a home that is paid off?
and
2. Large part of my family live in South Florida, and anyone of retirement age gets huge breaks on their property taxes. I have a family member that bought a condo 3 blocks from south beach for 20,000. Her home has gone up significantly over the last 20ish years and she's never had any problems.
3. There is the "Save our Homes" provision which keeps wild swings in property taxes from happening (locks the max swing to 3%).

1) You need a buyer in order to sell a home. His home is actually not that nice and he's actually a stubborn cantankerous fellow. Furthermore, with medical expenses he's got more debt. Homelessness for petty cash is not a good trade. I'm not too intimately aware of what he's using for credit, he may have taken out a mortgage on his home.

2) and 3) refer to below...

[dante2308]

enchintatl, thanks for making me look this up. I never looked up the details of my uncle's situation. Does that make me a bad person? Sigh...

There is a $25,000 value exemption for senior citizens, and the Save the Homes which limits the value assessment to a 3% per year and has another 25k exemption.

But the senior citizen exemption does not apply to his town . Which means he was on the hook for the rise. Which though it sounds like a 3% increase, it really wasn't because it was incremental over the exemptions. So say his house was worth 50k, his taxes would go up 6% per year. The newest Save our Homes initiative raised the exemption by 25k in 2008 which is an improvement, but a late one.

It seems that he had money problems above and beyond property taxes. (I asked my mom) But I think the big issue was that he had to dig into his savings each year for it in the first place despite living way longer than he planned to. (He's my grandfather's uncle and has great great grandchildren).

Also this might be an issue:

Palm Beach County property owners for the second year in a row face the possibility of a double-digit tax rate increase to head off a looming budget shortfall.

The county's proposed tax rate would go up about 13 percent — just one year after a nearly 15 percent tax rate boost — to help cover a $100 million projected shortfall, according to the county's 2010-11 budget proposal released Tuesday.

[echinatl]

Originally Posted by dante2308

enchintatl, thanks for making me look this up. I never looked up the details of my uncle's situation. Does that make me a bad person? Sigh...

There is a $25,000 exemption for senior citizens, and the Save the Homes which limits the rise to 3% per year. Edit: The exemption does not apply to his town . Which means he was on the hook for the rise.

It seems that he had money problems above and beyond property taxes. (I asked my mom)

Huge bummer.
I've suddenly had to become somewhat familiar with miami property taxes because one of my relatives passed away and we're trying to figure out if we should sell or rent her place. Somehow she was able to get almost 100,000 in homestead exemptions, and since she was a widow, an extra 500 dollar deduction off what she owed after the homestead exemption was factored in. No joke the taxes are going to go from like 300ish that she was paying to 3,000!

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by echinatl

Huge bummer.
I've suddenly had to become somewhat familiar with miami property taxes because one of my relatives passed away and we're trying to figure out if we should sell or rent her place. Somehow she was able to get almost 100,000 in homestead exemptions, and since she was a widow, an extra 500 dollar deduction off what she owed after the homestead exemption was factored in. No joke the taxes are going to go from like 300ish that she was paying to 3,000!

Yeah read what I posted again with the edits. I just add to that post as I find more stuff.

The current exemptions for Miami (since you made me a tax expert) are: 50k + 25k for seniors over 65 plus $500 for a widow that I know of.

Whats with the ten fold increase? Is it the residual over the exemptions adding up?

Hmm it seems that if he does sell his house and buys one, then he'll have to pay more in taxes because the 3% cap doesn't apply to people who buy a home so he'll have to deal with the full value.

[echinatl]

That fact you mentioned that he'll have to pay property taxes at the full value of a new home is one of the main reasons we're dealing with this huge jump. So even though prices have come off their high's, the value of the home is still way higher than what the yearly 3% adjustments had her locked into. So not only is that $500.00 deduction no longer applied, and all of the homestead exemptions removed, the house was also reappraised.
I mean I totally see why the deductions should be removed, we certainly aren't living there, aren't a senior citizen, and I'm not a widow, so I'm not complaining..... but it still sucks!
This probably happens a lot, someone get's lucky and picks a house in an area that experiences a huge increase in value. There are some protections to keep people from being taxed out of their homes but what happens if you want to buy a house next door, you're priced out of the market. That's the free market at work!
Funny story, my college roommate has a house in a multimillion dollar neighborhood in Key Biscayne. His parents bought the house for 60,000 like 35 years ago. Everyone hates them because they've done nothing to the house, but they could sell it for 1.1 million just because of the location. BUT, they're able to stay because of the 3% lock. Basically everyone in the neighborhood hates them haha. It is literally the only house that's not a crazy mansion in this exclusive private gated community.

[BlindFatSnake]

Originally Posted by Pessimistic Observer

Democrats unseated exactly one Republican (state Rep. Jill Chambers of DeKalb County).

for those who dont know jill chambers was a major critic of marta and she chaired a committee that oversaw marta's finances

That's major news... I'm so glad to hear she's no longer around!!!